Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 20:08:47 +0000
From: "Singhai, Anjali" <anjali.singhai@...el.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, "Samudrala, Sridhar"
	<sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
CC: "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>,
	"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	"shannon.nelson@....com" <shannon.nelson@....com>,
	"simon.horman@...igine.com" <simon.horman@...igine.com>, "leon@...nel.org"
	<leon@...nel.org>, "decot@...gle.com" <decot@...gle.com>,
	"willemb@...gle.com" <willemb@...gle.com>, "Brandeburg, Jesse"
	<jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, "Nguyen, Anthony L"
	<anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "kuba@...nel.org"
	<kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Orr, Michael"
	<michael.orr@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH iwl-next v4 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF driver

I agree on Help message change as it is not accurate now and I like MST's suggestion. 

Anjali

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> 
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 2:21 AM
To: Samudrala, Sridhar <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Cc: Tantilov, Emil S <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>; intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org; shannon.nelson@....com; simon.horman@...igine.com; leon@...nel.org; decot@...gle.com; willemb@...gle.com; Brandeburg, Jesse <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>; Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>; davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org; pabeni@...hat.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Singhai, Anjali <anjali.singhai@...el.com>; Orr, Michael <michael.orr@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF driver

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:36:00AM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/18/2023 10:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 04:26:24PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 5/18/2023 10:10 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 09:19:31AM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 5/11/2023 11:34 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 12:43:11PM -0700, Emil Tantilov wrote:
> > > > > > > This patch series introduces the Intel Infrastructure Data 
> > > > > > > Path Function
> > > > > > > (IDPF) driver. It is used for both physical and virtual 
> > > > > > > functions. Except for some of the device operations the 
> > > > > > > rest of the functionality is the same for both PF and VF. 
> > > > > > > IDPF uses virtchnl version2 opcodes and structures defined 
> > > > > > > in the virtchnl2 header file which helps the driver to 
> > > > > > > learn the capabilities and register offsets from the device Control Plane (CP) instead of assuming the default values.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So, is this for merge in the next cycle?  Should this be an RFC rather?
> > > > > > It seems unlikely that the IDPF specification will be 
> > > > > > finalized by that time - how are you going to handle any specification changes?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes. we would like this driver to be merged in the next cycle(6.5).
> > > > > Based on the community feedback on v1 version of the driver, 
> > > > > we removed all references to OASIS standard and at this time 
> > > > > this is an intel vendor driver.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Links to v1 and v2 discussion threads 
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230329140404.1647925-1-pavan.
> > > > > kumar.linga@...el.com/ 
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230411011354.2619359-1-pavan.
> > > > > kumar.linga@...el.com/
> > > > > 
> > > > > The v1->v2 change log reflects this update.
> > > > > v1 --> v2: link [1]
> > > > >    * removed the OASIS reference in the commit message to make it clear
> > > > >      that this is an Intel vendor specific driver
> > > > 
> > > > Yes this makes sense.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Any IDPF specification updates would be handled as part of the 
> > > > > changes that would be required to make this a common standards driver.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So my question is, would it make sense to update Kconfig and 
> > > > module name to be "ipu" or if you prefer "intel-idpf" to make it 
> > > > clear this is currently an Intel vendor specific driver?  And 
> > > > then when you make it a common standards driver rename it to 
> > > > idpf?  The point being to help make sure users are not confused 
> > > > about whether they got a driver with or without IDPF updates. 
> > > > It's not critical I guess but seems like a good idea. WDYT?
> > > 
> > > It would be more disruptive to change the name of the driver. We 
> > > can update the pci device table, module description and possibly 
> > > driver version when we are ready to make this a standard driver.
> > > So we would prefer not changing the driver name.
> > 
> > Kconfig entry and description too?
> > 
> 
> The current Kconfig entry has Intel references.
> 
> +config IDPF
> +	tristate "Intel(R) Infrastructure Data Path Function Support"
> +	depends on PCI_MSI
> +	select DIMLIB
> +	help
> +	  This driver supports Intel(R) Infrastructure Processing Unit (IPU)
> +	  devices.
> 
> It can be updated with Intel references removed when the spec becomes 
> standard and meets the community requirements.

Right, name says IDPF support help says IPU support.
Also config does not match name.

Do you want:


config INTEL_IDPF
	tristate "Intel(R) Infrastructure Data Path Function Support"

and should help say

	  This driver supports Intel(R) Infrastructure Data Path Function
	  devices.
?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists